Jason Benell lives in Des Moines with his wife and two children. He is a combat veteran, former city council candidate, and president of Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers.

After reading a CNN article about how State Auditor Rob Sand is “leading with faith” as a strategy in his campaign for governor, I am dismayed.

He is wrong, and I think his rhetoric puts the future of our state and the Democratic Party in jeopardy. I like Rob, and I think he would be a better governor than any Republican, but using faith in this way is a dead end for him and the party. He may pick up voters and may even win with this approach in 2026. But it’s not a sustainable long-term strategy, in light of our increasingly secular populace, with older voters having the strongest religious affinity.

Let’s be real: what will be the answer when all of the religious voters move on from this life and all we have is a watered down, faith-based, Sand-like Democratic Party that most of its electorate doesn’t value or take seriously? What happens when a new faith group or claim comes along, and we are forced to watch our political leaders contort into pretzels when faith leaders challenge them on policy? What happens when the electorate looks and sounds more like me, a secular person of color who cares about outcomes more than entreating faith, and we have to choose between you or not participating at all?

You get what we have now.

All the religious folks lining up on one side, and all the secular (and with an objectively more ethical track record) leaving the party or being extremely skeptical of them—just like now.

The difference is Sand’s message would be less popular next go around, and folks would become more galvanized against using faith as a basis for anything. They would see it for the weakness of political argument that it is—a blanket term that means whatever the person uttering it wants it to mean. How seriously can a critically thinking electorate take a candidate’s position when they cite the very same basis—faith—that their opposition does? 

Being religious isn’t the issue, but using your faith as a basis for a policy position is not a good way forward for our future. Besides the ethical and procedural problems of injecting faith into decision making at high levels, it is a strategically fraught one too.

If faith were a virtue, as Sand suggests, then we would have a problem with secular groups—not explicitly religious ones—eroding rights, committing violence, and amping up hateful rhetoric. Instead, it’s exactly the opposite, with faith being the primary reason we see such awful policies brought forward. A government with a moral and legal basis should be built on a strong foundation of secular ethics, science, and consequence-based policy—not on faith claims that can be interpreted and changed on a whim.

A government built on faith has a foundation built on sand, and that isn’t the kind of Sand that appeals to those that value outcomes over faith claims.

Good people will prefer Sand to his opponent because they’re good, not because they are religious. The opposite is true too; folks who think faith is more important than their neighbor’s welfare will vote for the party that mimics their cult-like beliefs and behavior.

Let us not use the capricious tools of faith, fear, blame, and mysticism. They will never serve us the same way they serve those that seek to divide Americans and erode—rather than build up—civil rights.

---

Editor’s note from Laura Belin: In 2024, Bleeding Heartland covered how Sand weaves his faith and biblical references into his public speeches.

This video, posted by Sand’s campaign on September 18, includes one example of how he uses religious language. He has used versions of this pitch at his recent town hall meetings and political speeches, including at the Iowa Democratic Wing Ding in August. Sand explains that the story of Jesus flipping over the money-changers’ tables always stood out to him, and asks voters to help him flip some tables over in Des Moines next year.